Non-Disclosure Of Medical Deformity While Seeking Re-Appointment Amounts To Deliberate Suppression, Termination Restored: Supreme Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Suit Based On Unregistered Gift Deed Not Maintainable; Plaint Liable For Rejection: Andhra Pradesh High Court Accused Has No Blanket Immunity From Re-Arrest If Initial Arrest Was Declared Illegal Only On Technical Grounds: Punjab & Haryana High Court Father’s Obligation To Maintain Minor Child Under Section 125 CrPC Is Absolute Even If Mother Is Also Earning: Uttarakhand High Court Variation In Physical Signature No Ground To Reject Bid If Submitted Via Secure Digital Signature Certificate: Orissa High Court Management Cannot Re-Examine Selection After Candidate Alters Position By Leaving Previous Job: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Production Of E-Way Bills Not Proof Of Physical Movement Of Goods; GST Registration Can Be Cancelled For Fake ITC Claims: Madras High Court Employer Cannot Abuse Unequal Bargaining Power To Deny Back Wages For Period Of Eligibility: Supreme Court Restores Dues Of MSRTC Employee Entire Bank Account Of Educational Institution Cannot Be Frozen Merely Because It Received Fees From Accused Parent: Karnataka High Court CARA Must Facilitate Relocation Of Children Adopted Under HAMA; Cannot Abdicate Responsibility By Issuing Mere 'Support Letters': Delhi High Court Valid Caste Certificate Issued By Competent Authority Is Sine Qua Non To Establish Offence Under SC/ST Act: Chhattisgarh High Court Shifting Defense From 'No Transaction' To 'Transaction Not Proved' Prima Facie Shows Dishonest Intent Since Inception: Calcutta High Court Sugar Exports Under Specific Permission Cannot Be Treated As 'Restricted' To Deny RoDTEP Benefits: Bombay High Court Allahabad High Court Rejects Bail Of Man Who Killed Bystander While Aiming At Another; Invokes 'Doctrine Of Transfer Of Malice' SDO Cannot Reclassify Public Utility Land To Grant Private Leases; Such Pattas Are Void Ab Initio: Supreme Court DNA Test Report Prevails Over Presumption Of Legitimacy Under Section 112 Evidence Act If Report Is Undisputed: Supreme Court Foreign Summary Judgment Passed After Refusing Leave To Defend Is Not 'On Merits' Under Section 13 CPC: Supreme Court Constitutional Safeguards Don’t End At Prison Gates: Supreme Court Extends Mandatory Disability Rights Directions To All States & UTs Courts Not Bound By Low Govt Rates For Prosthetic Limbs; Claimants Entitled To Choose Private Centres For 'Just Compensation': Supreme Court Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Reject Plaint Over Insufficient Court Fee Without Giving Mandatory Opportunity To Correct Valuation: Supreme Court

Bail Denied in Rape Case: RJ HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


 The Rajasthan High Court denied Godman Asaram Bapu's motion to suspend sentences in a case involving the sexual assault of a minor [Asharam @ Ashumal v. State of Rajasthan].

Justices Vinit Kumar Mathur and Sandeep Mehta were hearing the third application filed by Bapu after he was convicted and sentenced to life in prison for sexually assaulting a minor and sentenced to life in prison.

The Jodhpur bench of the High Court ruled that the appellant did not merit bail based on the nature and severity of the allegations, as well as the fact that the appeal itself was ready for hearing.

Asaram filed the petition on the grounds that he was an 83-year-old elderly man suffering from multiple ailments.

He stated that he had been incarcerated for nine years and seven months, and therefore deserved bail.

It was also stated that it was evident from a cursory reading of the victim's statement that he was not guilty of the crimes for which he was convicted.

The court, however, did not find sufficient evidence to grant the application.

2013 saw the arrest of Asaram Bapu on charges of raping a minor girl. The alleged offence occurred in the Manai village of Jodhpur in August 2013.

On August 20, 2013, a FIR was initially registered against him. In accordance with the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Juvenile Justice Act (JJ Act), and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act, he was arrested at midnight on August 31, 2013.

According to the chargeseet submitted in November 2013, Asaram and the other accused were indicted for various violations of the Indian Penal Code, the Juvenile Justice Act, and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, including trafficking, rape, outraging a woman's modesty, wrongful confinement, and criminal intimidation.

Following Asaram's arrest, two women from Surat filed a complaint alleging they were raped between 2002 and 2005 by Asaram and his son.

The felony trial for the alleged rape in Jodhpur began in 2014 and lasted four years. In the course of the trial, nine witnesses were attacked, and three were murdered.

The applicant was represented by Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat, Advocates Rajesh Inamdar and RS Saluja, and the respondent was represented by AAG Anil Joshi, Public Prosecutor RR Chhaperwal, and Advocate PC Solanka.

D.D:07-07-2022

Asharam @ Ashumal versus. State of Rajasthan 

Latest Legal News